Comment by whizzter

Datacenters and crypto are evidently a bad source for large-scale load variability because their significant capex demands that they be kept running 24/7.

This is often a problem with variable load schemes that do any useful work, rather than just dumping heat into something. It would be interesting to see a list sorted by just how thick they are with capital considerations. Aluminum smelting, hydrogen electrolysis, lots of other options on that list.

Does that mean Norway is making a huge amount of money exporting electricity over those interconnections?

> Importing high prices from the failed energy politics of UK

Remember that its a market, not the consumer price.

The spot price for UK electricity is still quite competitive in the winter, just not reliable.

The other thing to note is that peak in the UK is different to peak further up in longitude, which means that there is benefit to both countries for this.

That seems counterintuitive to me.

Electricity prices don't go up because you have access to expensive power, it goes up because you don't have enough cheap power so you have to buy the expensive power.

It seems like Norway just wouldn't have power if they weren't connected to other sources, not that they'd have more cheap power.

Solving the Scotland/England interconnect under-capacity is well underway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_high-voltage_transmiss...

But they are building such a link, because it'll make/save more money than it costs.

Imagine how many doom and gloom headlines we'd have avoided if these two massive construction projects could have been sync'd up perfectly or if we had a national press that could do anything other than try to scare people with big numbers.

The interconnects already exists.

You could just build a back-channel for the existing hydro-dams? Those reservoirs are only full for a short period and that is when you dont need pump energy.

You could use the ocean for the bottom level and an artificial reservoir for the top level. You're not going to noticeably affect ocean levels.

Or just use a large lake. You're not going to noticeably affect the water levels of a large lake. You might pump 10 billion litres of water, which is .02% of the volume of Mjøsa.

I think hydro storage is a lot less disruptive because you don't need as much space. Traditional hydro reservoirs have to last all season.

I wonder if it's possible to also increase the amount of generation on existing dams? I could imagine there being situations where there's excess peak flow capacity but it isn't utilized because the flow rate would be unsustainable. But if we're looking for storage it could make sense.

It doesn't get cold enough for long enough for lakes to freeze solid.

There's not much geothermal available when you are standing atop the baltic shield.

For a few hours leading to insignificant emissions.

> Now part of that problem is that we more or less constantly export electricity to Germany (but that was because they closed their nuclear plants).

We have previously imported way more. The problem nowadays is that carbon emissions are expensive and even more so when coming from LNG rather than pipeline from Russia.

In other words: our prices were previously more aligned with Germanys because ours were more expensive and Germanys was cheaper.

If you are Swedish, or understand Swedish following from the "we", take a look at this talk starting at 43:40 to understand where the prices are coming from:

https://play.mediaflow.com/ovp/16/88PEO8YFIF

> The main problem domestically in Sweden is that 30% of current electricity generation in Sweden is nuclear, but the _newest_ plants are 40 years old, on top of that the electricity generation needs to increase, steel mills de-carbonizing, more electric cars and so on.

And new built nuclear power won't be online until the 2040s. Are you saying that we should wait until the 2040s to decarbonize those parts of the economy rather than do it ASAP with renewables and storage?

The existing nuclear power fleet has now targetted their maintenance on operation until the 2060s, so it is not like it will disappear overnight.

The difference between baseline and peak electricity consumption in Finland is >2x. That's mostly driven by heating. Because renewables make electricity cheap on the average, utility companies invest in cheap heat storage systems such as sand batteries. They use electricity when it's cheap, store the heat, and distribute it when it's needed.

As for nuclear, the challenge is finding companies that are able and willing to build it. Areva and Rosatom both failed at the "able" part. And a power company (I think it was Fortum) recently stated that they would consider building new nuclear reactors with German electric prices but not with Finnish prices.

There is more to that than a power company asking for subsidies. Finland is a small country. Olkiluoto 3 alone generates >10% of the electricity. Newer reactors would likely be smaller but still ~10% of the total. Finnish power companies are too small to take risks like that on their own. They can't build new reactors at their own risk, in order to sell the power in the market. Before a reactor gets built, the power company needs long-term commitments from industrial users and utility companies to buy power for a guaranteed price. Such commitments would make sense for the buyer with German electricity prices but not with Finnish prices.

>2. We have no geothermal sources sufficient for production of electricity, it can only be used to slightly reduce primary energy use during winter, but it will raise electricity use during winter.

The project for properly deep geothermal for district heating in Espoo was not resounding success. And that is 6,4km deep hole in southern part of Finland. My understanding is that it somewhat worked. But not as good as expected.

>The option up here really truly is "do we use fossil fuels, or do we use nuclear". Renewables do not help.

Hey now - renewables gave us electricity up here long before Einstein started thinking about atoms!

We are very few people here, 250MWh helps a lot, but if we have to chip in to build a nuclear plant we'll be broke before the project planning is done. ;-)

> The southernmost spot in Finland is too far north, and the scramble that happened in EU at the loss of Russian energy supplies made it crystal clear that we can not trust any other country to help in times of need.

That's the failure of European union

> 3. Helps not at all, because 0 times however large number you like is still 0.

Show me your Monte Carlo simulation where wind (which is negatively correlated to solar) and 8 hours of battery storage are factored in, along with small amounts of gas peaking plants.

The system in the article works alongside gas and wood chips heating, so there are other options in place if the sand battery cannot be "charged".

FTA:

> The project will cut fossil-based emissions in the Vääksy district heating network by around 60% each year, by reducing natural gas use bu 80% and also decreasing wood chip consumption.

Why no power? The forests, hydro dams, heat plants and such that gave power long before wind became a thing are still there.

This would be an argument for widespread backup power, actually. If every residence had enough backup power to get through 24 hours, it would be far easier to deal with these relatively rare doldrums.

Please read the hn guidelines and reconsider your participation.